31-10-2025, 02:36 AM
Thread reopened. I've moved a few posts to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. so that their points can be debated there. Happily, I managed to do it without breaking anything.
Going forward, I'd like to ask everyone to please use that thread for advancing points specific to the Modern Hoax theory. If you want to argue the watermark is evidence there was a modern hoax, then the Modern Hoax thread awaits you. And if you want to declare that the watermark rebuts the Modern Hoax theory, then the Modern Hoax thread awaits you too.
Let's use this thread as we were for its first half: to learn more about the watermark without triggering a debate about the manuscript's authenticity. If you want the latter, you can find it in the location above.
Going forward, I'd like to ask everyone to please use that thread for advancing points specific to the Modern Hoax theory. If you want to argue the watermark is evidence there was a modern hoax, then the Modern Hoax thread awaits you. And if you want to declare that the watermark rebuts the Modern Hoax theory, then the Modern Hoax thread awaits you too.
Let's use this thread as we were for its first half: to learn more about the watermark without triggering a debate about the manuscript's authenticity. If you want the latter, you can find it in the location above.